Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I was not expecting that, but I am happy to second the motion on this important issue, which has been the subject of a great deal of public debate in recent weeks and is causing severe anxiety, stress and worry among those who are affected by it. It is a fact that those who comprise one-parent families - mothers or fathers and their children - are generally among the poorest people in society. We can all talk about the most vulnerable people in society, but if we look at this from an economic perspective we will see that many of the most vulnerable people in society are members of one-parent families. That is the reality of it.

The Minister of State has given many reasons that sound good to explain why this scheme has been changed. The Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, originally promised that Scandinavian-style child care would be available when the lone-parent limit was reduced to seven years of age. In fact, that was supposed to happen much earlier than now. It is absolutely outrageous that this has not happened. It was not a pre-election promise, or a case of "isn’t that what you tend to do during an election?"; it was a commitment made by a Minister of the Government as part of a solemn statement in Dáil Éireann. The reality is that there has been no credible commitment on the delivery of safe, affordable and accessible child care similar to that provided in Scandinavian countries, as promised by the Tánaiste. As a result of her toing and froing and breaking of promises, a political party that has been set up today is talking about promising the delivery of a Scandinavian social democratic model at the next election. A member of the Government of this country has already made a commitment to that effect in our Parliament. Can one not rely on the statements of Ministers in Parliament? It is no good saying that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has not followed it up.

It is outrageous that the Government amendment refers to "increased investment in childcare programmes". The child care needs of one-parent and two-parent families is still a huge matter of political debate in this country. It is not an issue that is in any way decided or finalised. We are still trying to work out what is best and most affordable for families. Three years ago, the current Tánaiste had worked it out. She knew that she wanted Scandinavian child care to be brought in for one-parent families. Of course it is necessary. The effect of the Government's decision to put these new arrangements in place in the absence of proper child care provision will be absolutely devastating for lone parents who are working and in education. The Labour Party often says it is the party of work and seems to pride itself on that. I suggest that as a corollary to that, it has a suspicion or distaste for welfare. It might refer to "welfare dependency" but it is talking about what many people simply refer to as the welfare they need to prevent themselves from falling into poverty. It is not right to force people to do something that will cause them to be financially short and leave their family lives in tatters. We cannot do that because we are talking about the most vulnerable people in society. That phrase gets bandied about all the time, but I put it to the House, and I am sure people will agree, that this debate is about the most vulnerable people in society.

The Tánaiste and the Department have shown scant regard for research showing that levels of poverty and deprivation in one-parent families have increased significantly since the start of the recession. The 2013 survey of income and living conditions shows that almost a quarter of one-parent families with dependent children live in consistent poverty. That level is over three times as high as the level among the general population. That is what we are talking about. There was an increase of almost one third in the consistent poverty rate within such families from 2012 to 2013. Almost two thirds of the poorest children in Ireland live in one-parent households. The cuts in this payment that are being proposed and implemented by the Minister - they have already been brought in - will further impoverish the most vulnerable children in the State.

This is a direct attack on the poorest of the poor, and it has to be said that it is another attack on women. This Department has had a very bad record on women over recent years. I remind the House that the contributory pension for people who do not have the full set of stamps was cut massively. Although this applied on paper to both men and women, in practice it was mainly an attack on women because almost all of those who are short of stamps are women who left the workforce during their careers to have children. I have given two key examples of policies implemented by this Department that have particularly attacked women by singling them out for treatment in the name of reform. That is wrong. There has been no assessment of the social impact of these changes. I am pleased to see that our motion has been signed by a number of Independent Senators because that does not often happen with party motions. The motion calls on the Government to "reverse the cuts to the one-parent family payment" and to "heed the advice of the Report on the Single Working Age Payment Proposal agreed by the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education in March 2012, which recommended that no reform of social welfare policy should take place until child care and other family supports are fully in place".The Minister went much further than that when she made her commitment about Scandinavian-type child care.